political nonprofit – OpenSecrets Bloghttps://www.opensecrets.org/news
Breaking news, original reporting, and investigative journalism *on money in politics from the Center for Responsive PoliticsWed, 23 May 2018 21:20:44 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.4Outside spending in House races shifts gears for general electionhttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/outside-spending-in-house-races-shifts-gears-for-general-election/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/outside-spending-in-house-races-shifts-gears-for-general-election/#respondThu, 08 Sep 2016 19:33:33 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=15971Compared to the astronomical numbers being charted in the presidential election, spending by outside groups in congressional face-offs might seem like a trickle. But House elections have also seen a jump in outside spending in the last few years, from about $29 million by this point in the 2012 election cycle to $43 million at…

Roger Marshall became only the second challenger to beat an incumbent in a Kansas House election since 1964, defeating Rep. Tim Huelskamp in the Republican primary. (Travis Morisse/The Hutchinson News via AP)

Compared to the astronomical numbers being charted in the presidential election, spending by outside groups in congressional face-offs might seem like a trickle. But House elections have also seen a jump in outside spending in the last few years, from about $29 million by this point in the 2012 election cycle to $43 million at the same point in 2014.

2016 has brought an uncharacteristic dip, though: House races have only seen $40 million spent by outside groups — so far.

That doesn’t mean the number won’t shoot up. In 2014, outside groups poured about $294 million into House elections in just the last two months before Election Day.

Kansas’ 1st Congressional District is on top, so far, with super PACs and politically active nonprofits laying out about $2.7 million so far. That’s more than 10 times what outside groups spent there in 2014. In fact, super PACs and politically active nonprofits have outspent candidate committees by more than $1 million in the district.

“Usually, the most expensive races are the most competitive races,” Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel Brendan Fischer said, and Kansas is a case in point, featuring a fierce rivalry between incumbent GOP Rep. Tim Huelskamp and a newcomer backed by the establishment wing of the party, Roger Marshall.

Another hot spot this cycle: Ohio’s 8th Congressional District, site of a similarly intense Republican primary competition: Fifteen GOP candidates vied for the right to run in a June 7 special election called to fill the seat of former Rep. John Boehner (R). About $2.5 million in super PAC and 501(c) spending — led by Club for Growth Action, which invested more than $1 million to bolster primary victor Warren Davidson — was drawn to the district, more than three times the amount spent there in 2014. (Davidson prevailed in the special election as well, and is favored to win in November.)

Club for Growth has spent more in the Ohio 8th than in any other House race this election cycle so far.

But the Kansas and Ohio districts won’t be seeing much more in the way of outside spending. They’re both considered safe Republican seats, so the groups’ attention is shifting to competitive general election races, if it hasn’t already.

Take, for instance, Maine’s 2nd District, rated as a major battleground this year. Neither Republican incumbent Rep. Bruce Poliquin nor Democrat Emily Cain had primary opposition after another Democratic candidate dropped out in February. Outside groups spent only $177,177 in the primaries — but they have paid out about $1.2 million targeting the general election in the last couple months.

While Poliquin has raised $1 million more than Cain through his campaign committee, Cain has benefited from more than 80 percent of the outside spending so far, helping to equalize the competition.

Similarly, in another hot race in Nebraska, Republican nominee Don Bacon has benefited from more than half the $1 million outside groups have spent since the primaries while Democratic incumbent Rep. Brad Ashford has raised more than twice as much as he has.

Researchers Anya Gelernt-Dunkle and Douglas Weber contributed to this post.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/outside-spending-in-house-races-shifts-gears-for-general-election/feed/0Super PAC spending hits $500 million, while 501(c)s hit the brakeshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/super-pac-spending-reaches-500m/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/super-pac-spending-reaches-500m/#respondThu, 01 Sep 2016 18:20:22 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=15838Total outside spending for the 2016 election has already reached a record $660 million, more than twice the $289 million spent by outside groups by this point in the 2012 election. Super PACs have led the charge, breaking the half-a-billion dollar mark in spending and making up about 80 percent of total outside spending. The nearly…

Priorities USA Action, which backs Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and recently produced this ad, is likely to be one of the top-spending super PACs of the 2016 cycle.

Total outside spending for the 2016 election has already reached a record $660 million, more than twice the $289 million spent by outside groups by this point in the 2012 election.

Super PACs have led the charge, breaking the half-a-billion dollar mark in spending and making up about 80 percent of total outside spending. The nearly $530 million is almost three times the amount spent by super PACs in the 2012 election by the end of August. And by the end of the 2012 contest, that $177 million had skyrocketed to $609 million, so expect the groups to burn through much more cash by the time voters cast their ballots this November.

On the receiving end, super PACs are breaking another record, raising just short of $1 billion. For context, these groups pulled in about $828 million in the entire 2012 election cycle.

While super PACs have poured a record amount of cash into this election cycle, spending by dark money groups and politically active nonprofits overall has slowed compared to its volume in 2012.

By this time in 2012, 501(c) nonprofit groups had spent about $63 million, or about 22 percent of all $289 million in outside spending. But so far this cycle, these nonprofits reported outlays of $62 million — a mere 9 percent of the $660 million in total outside money spent.

(Not all 501(c)s are considered “dark money” groups. Some partially or fully disclose their donors. Also, some super PACs, though required to reveal their donors, disclose only contributions from dark money groups, and thus we classify them as dark money outfits themselves.)

By the end of 2012 election cycle, total 501(c) spending had skyrocketed to $308 million. We’ll likely see another jump this fall, though the slower pace of that spending in recent months makes any predictions tricky. Earlier this cycle, dark money spending was well ahead of 2012 levels.

Contrary to the 2,300 percent increase in overall 501(c) spending from January to August in 2012, that spending has increased only by 680 percent in the same period in 2016.

This slowdown comes unexpectedly; a recent study by the Wesleyan Media Project and the Center for Responsive Politics detailed the escalating role of dark money groups in outside spending since 2000.

Americans for Prosperity, a well-known 501(c)(4) nonprofit in the conservative Koch brothers network, has limited its involvement in the 2016 election cycle to $2 million so far, considerably less than the $36.6 million it spent four years ago.

Besides the drop in spending, there are considerably fewer nonprofit groups spending money in federal elections this time around, according to FEC reports filed. In the 2012 election cycle, 266 501(c) groups were active election spenders; in this election cycle, just 87 have been.

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, said this might look surprising at first glance.

“But it does make sense, because this is a very unique election with Donald Trump’s presence,” Holman said. “Donald Trump has alienated corporate interests,” who can be big players in the dark money world. Holman called the dwindling of dark money groups in this election, especially since the conventions, part of a “Trump phenomenon,” and said he does not expect it to be a continuing trend.

Still, the decline also could be simply part of the natural evolution of campaign finance as rules and donor interests change, said Brendan Glavin at the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan research and advocacy group.

“When soft money became legal in 2002, 527 groups thrived in 2004,” Glavin said. “In 2008, nonprofits started to be exploited more and since 2010, super PACs have started to take over all other spending. We don’t really know what will happen in the next election.”

Federal Election Commission rules allow 501(c) groups to spend millions without reporting any to the commission as long as the ads are run more than 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Some of the largest politically active nonprofits use these windows to avoid reporting millions of dollars in political spending.

The collaborative study by Wesleyan Media Project and CRP shows nonprofits have deliberately avoided spending during the FEC reporting window, making the reported numbers something of a fiction. One group, a 501(c)(4) called One Nation, has spent tens of millions of dollars in tight Senate races in 2016. The scale of its spending this cycle alone is high enough to put it in the top 50 all-time ad buyers, but it hasn’t reported any of its spending to the FEC.

He was runner-up last timeOpenSecrets Blog checked in on megadonors, when hedge funder Robert Mercer topped the list. But between June 28 and July 20, Steyer gave $14 million to NextGen Climate Action, doubling his total contributions and vaulting him into the lead among megadonors.

In the meantime, NextGen Climate Action raised the fifth largest amount of money for the 2016 election cycle to date, but has spent only $700,000 of its $38 million raised, all to advertise against Republicans, according to CRP data.

Trend or Anomaly?

While the level of outside spending, especially by super PACs, may seem astronomical to some, it doesn’t to others who have been watching the trend lines since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Total outside spending from August 2008 to August 2012 tripled, from $96.8 million to $289.3 million.

Holman is surprised the total from in the last four years has only doubled.

“I fully expect the numbers to soar three or even four times by the end of November,” Holman said.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/super-pac-spending-reaches-500m/feed/0Why Should We Win a Webby?https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/why-should-we-win-a-webby/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/why-should-we-win-a-webby/#respondTue, 22 Apr 2014 08:00:00 +0000We're proud to be considered for a Webby Award. However, we need your votes to win the People's Voice portion of the prize. Need to be persuaded? Here's a quick look at the new, groundbreaking, or just plain cool additions we've made to OpenSecrets.org this year. Now vote, please!

Herewith, some grounds for persuasion: A quick look at all the new, groundbreaking, or just plain cool additions to OpenSecrets.org this year.

1) Brand-New Issue Profiles

Passionate about climate change? Curious about the role of the defense industry in elections and policy decisions? We’ve added Defense and Energy & Climate Change pages to our Issue Profiles. We’ll soon be posting one on gambling, and another on patents.

2) The Anomaly Tracker

Sometimes, when you’re looking at campaign finance data, something looks amiss — lawmakers sponsoring legislation that only one company — whose PAC or employees donated to said lawmaker — seems interested in, for instance, or members of Congress who receive more than 50 percent of their contributions from out-of-state. Last year, we developed a fun and easy way to look at these “anomalies” all in one place with the Anomaly Tracker.
3) 10 Things They Won’t Tell You About Money in Politics

Tracking money in federal politics is essential to knowing more about political candidates, as well as to understanding what’s behind election outcomes and even policy decisions, but what’s in the data isn’t always apparent to the naked eye. We tried to help with 10 Things Every Voter Should Know About Money in Politics.

However, we came to realize that that alone wasn’t enough; the world of money-in-politics is filled with insider jargon and little tricks the average voter may not be aware of. We laid some of them out last year in 10 Things They Won’t Tell You About Money in Politics.

4) A New, Improved Action Center

As an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, the Center for Responsive Politics does not advocate for specific legislation or regulations in any area — with one important exception: transparency.

If you agree with our mission of empowering citizens with information made available by a more transparent, accountable government, explore our new and improved Action Center. We’ve listed Action Items, or current initiatives/legislation that our users can support, as well as an Action Wishlist of proposals we hope will gain momentum in Congress. Be sure to check our Calendar of Events and our revolving Featured Event, as well, for information on transparency and open government-related events in your area.

5) Data on Joint Fundraising Committees

Joint fundraising committees are organizations created by two or more candidates, PACs, or party committees — or some combination of those — that share the costs of fundraising and split the proceeds. Due to the recent Supreme Court Decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, some observers believe that JFCs will proliferate, and that they’ll be bigger, since wealthy donors will no longer have to worry about hitting an overall cap on how much they can give. JFC’s can potentially involve many different candidates or committees — and solicit one donor for a mega-donation. In light of the possible rise of JFCs in this election cycle, we created our Joint Fundraising Committees page, with information on donors and recipients to these groups — information not available in easy-to-use format anywhere else.
6) In-Depth Organization Profiles

Companies, unions, super PACs — all the entities we categorize as organizations — put a significant amount of money into the political process, whether through company PACs, union lobbyists, or super PAC ad buys. As of this year, all of our organization profiles — not just those for the very biggest players — contain detailed information

7) Huge Strides in Tracking Political Nonprofits

2013 was the year of dark money for OpenSecrets.org! In addition to writing award-winning blog posts for our Shadow Money Trail series, we greatly expanded the scope of information we offer on nondisclosing political nonprofit groups in our Outside Spending section.

Because they do not disclose their donors, political nonprofits are notoriously hard to follow — but we have the most information on these mysterious groups anywhere. Check it all out in our groundbreaking Political Nonprofits section, which includes our 990s Extracts Search.

Every day, our hardworking staff parses, slices, dices, and otherwise adds value to data from the FEC, IRS, and other government agencies to make it easily available and easy to use. We put the “real” in real-time data by making these numbers understandable and putting them in context through all parts of OpenSecrets.org and the OpenSecrets Blog.

We’re proud to have been a leader in following the money for the past 30 years. Please help us add a 2014 Webby Award to our list of hard-earned honors! Vote for us here.

P.S.: If you follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, or Pinterest, you may have seen other reasons (some silly, some serious) that we think OpenSecrets.org should #WinaWebby. Check them out.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/why-should-we-win-a-webby/feed/0Politiquizz: In the Driver’s Seathttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/02/politiquizz-in-the-drivers-seat/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/02/politiquizz-in-the-drivers-seat/#respondWed, 19 Feb 2014 16:10:38 +0000Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is about to step into the chairmanship for the Senate Committee on Finance, while Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) will take his place as chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Who are their biggest donors?

]]>Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is about to step into the chairmanship for the Senate Committee on Finance, while Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) will take his place as chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The reshuffle at the top of the ladder comes as a result of President Obama’s recent selection of Sen. Max Baucus of Montana as the next U.S. Ambassador to China.

Both Wyden and Landrieu are ascending to sought-after chairmanships in the Senate, and their newly won positions will deliver to each a considerable amount of power over policy and legislative action in the chamber.

After spending years on their respective committees, Wyden and Landrieu are no strangers to the influence of interest groups, corporations, and individuals. The oil & gas industry has contributed nearly $1.3 million to Landrieu over the course of her career, while securities & investments interests have contributed more than $1.1 million to Wyden during the duration of his time in office.

However, the senators’ growing seniority on their panels has not fully dictated the sources of their political contributions in the past. Both have received the most in total contributions from lawyers and law firms during their careers, and their top donors do not necessarily reflect the interests fighting for their attention on their respective committees.

Which brings us to this week’s Politiquizz question:

“What company, organization, or individual donor has been Sen. Wyden’s largest career contributor? How about for Sen. Landrieu?”

The first to submit the entire correct answer to politiquizz@crp.org will win a free OpenSecrets.org bumper sticker. The answers can be found somewhere on our website. Happy searching!

Individuals in which industry have contributed the most to Sarbanes’ campaign committee over the course of his career? Which one comes in sixth? And what percentage of his funds came from small individual donors in the 2010 campaign cycle?

Congratulations to John Ray from Los Angeles, CA, who was the first to submit the correct answer: Lawyers and Lobbyists, Construction, and 3%.

]]>If you’ve been keeping up with OpenSecrets Blog, you’ll know that we’ve been busy hunting down and combing through the 2012 tax forms filed in mid-November by some of the biggest nondisclosing political nonprofits. These outside spending groups keep our research and reporting staff on their toes — read all about what we’ve found out in our Shadow Money Trail report series!

Politically active tax-exempt groups have charted explosive growth over the past few years — particularly since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Center for Responsive Politics has been tracking the spending habits of these groups, specifically those classified as “social welfare,” trade associations, or unions, for years, but we stepped up our game last year in response to the dramatically increased activity and have now devoted a big section of our website to them.

In order to retain their tax-exempt status, these groups cannot spend more than half their revenue on “political activity.” But that term is loosely defined. In addition, these groups aren’t required to disclose their donors, making for a pretty opaque corner of the campaign finance world. It can be next to impossible to see who’s funding many of the copious attack ads that air during election years. However, CRP researchers have been able to pin down a few of these nondisclosing groups that lean heavily political.

The politicization of nondisclosing political nonprofits can be found by comparing a group’s actual spending, as reported to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Federal Election Commission, to its attributable spending. Attributable spending is the amount of a grant recipient’s political spending that can be attributed to the donor organization.

Between Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, American Future Fund, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Job Security, which group is No. 1 in overall attributable political spending?

The first person to submit the entire correct answer to politiquizz@crp.org will win a free OpenSecrets.org bumper sticker. The answers can be found somewhere on our website. Happy searching!

In our last Politiquizz, we asked:Of the top 20 candidates to receive money from the food and beverage industry this year, who are the only three Democrats?

Congratulations to Jack from Silver Spring, Md., who was the first to respond with the correct answer: Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Michelle Nunn (D-Ga.)